Scottish Independence

I'm angry! Angry that I
can't vote in 'The Referendum'. Like the tens of thousands of Scots
nationals who live outside of Scotland, Scots who vociferously stand
up against all-comers for their homeland and for Scots every day, I
feel deprived in favour of any Petrov, Paulo or Ismael who happens to
have residence in Scotland, oh and 16 year-olds! And some Scots seem
to believe that political chicanery exists everywhere but in proposed
new Scotland and that all will be sunshine and thistles under the
Crankies! (sceptics nick-name for messrs. Salmond and Sturgeon). Have
they not noted that socialist utopias are unsustainable, notoriously
corrupt and inevitably end in bankruptcy.

Throughout my working
life and career, whenever I arrived at a crossroads or a time for
decision, I learned to apply a simple test. The test was a question
and the question was, “Why take the risk?” This test question
served me well. I neglected to apply just once in my life and
suffered a financial melt down as a consequence.

I see independence in a
similar light. With devolved government plus the union, Scots have
the best of both worlds. So, why take the risk of independence? It
will certainly create a high cost, high tax society and where is the
value of sovereignty when its terms will be dictated by some foreign
currency (be it sterling or euro) and by financial markets? Then
there's the question of security in this increasingly dangerous world
…....

As a Scottish teenager and young man I
would most certainly have supported Scottish independence. Brave
Heart romanticism would have ruled my judgement. This is why the
nationalists pushed to have sixteen year-olds included in the vote.
But, as an older, well-travelled and wiser man I would never support
the break up of the United Kingdom. And this, conversely, is why the
nationalists did not want non-resident Scots voting. And while
arguments surrounding the economics of separation quite rightly
abound they do not address the equally central issues of simple
geography and the people themselves.

Physically there is little sense in
separation because the land mass is one and a separate Scotland's
continued existence will still be inextricably linked to the security
of the British Isles as a whole. A friendly Scotland would require a
defensive alliance with the UK so, in that case, what's the point of
separation? And a future unfriendly Scotland would pose a security
threat right on the UK's doorstep, an unacceptable risk to the rest
of the UK which they'd rightly feel the need to address. A situation
which could neither favour Scotland nor leave it 'free'.

Then there's the people themselves.
Britons are now an intermixed race comprising families made up of
relatives from all parts of the land. This rich mix and diversity is
what makes Britain great and, yes, in the alliance Scots have
traditionally figured prominently and punched above their weight.
What a waste for Scots to lose this advantage and what a shame for
happy families to see their beloved UK broken up; more-so when there
exists the suspicion that, despite nationalist attempts to conceal
it, a core of separatist supporters are parochial Scots with no
antipathy with the UK as a whole and quite simply are (for no good
reason) English haters.

Are the majority of good Scots and
those with family, relatives, contact and business all over the UK
about to let these smaller-minded compatriots destroy the fabulous
partnership to which so many Scots have contributed so substantially,
worked for and indeed died for? I deeply hope not. Separation would
be a tragedy of epic scale for all of Britain – and the Scots would
have become the wreckers. I believe that Scots are better than that.

Footnote 18Sep2014 :

The world take note,
We've had our vote

And the 'No' camp
clearly nicked it

Is this because, Scots
took a pause

And asked
themselves, 'Why risk it?

Contact me about MY WRITING WORK or WRITING PROJECTS at http://www.algarvegolfholidays.com/writer.html